Essay:Why Pascal's Wager is stupid and I hate it

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by FuzzyCatPotato.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

Pascal's Wager says, "Worship the Christian god and get a good afterlife!"

Nope.

Contents

[edit] Pascal's Wager

If heaven is worth +1α, hell is worth -1α, and a non-afterlife is worth 0α, then Pascals Wager looks a lot like this:

Table 1
  Reality: Sum:
the Christian god
does not exist
the Christian god
exists
Belief: the Christian god
exists
+1α +1α
the Christian god
does not exist
−1α −1α

The situation looks dire for our intrepid atheist hero. At most, they get nothing; at worst, they get eternal torture.

[edit] Infinitarian's Wager

Fortunately for our intrepid atheist hero, Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy. Pascal's Wager assumes that either (1) the Christian god exists or (2) no god exists. No exceptions, no alternatives.

But this is ridiculous. There are many other possible gods than the Christian one. Why not wager over the existence of Zeus or Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

In fact, there are an infinite number of possible gods. Why? There are an unlimited number of attributes that a god can have. If two gods have different attributes then they are different. For example, God A hates bananas, while God B likes bananas, while God C is indifferent to bananas, while God D likes bananas half as much as God B, while God E likes bananas twice as much as God B. A different attribute means a different god; there is no limit to the size of the set of divine attributes; thus, the size of the set of all gods infinite.

This changes the Wager from 2 options to infinite options. It matters.

[edit] Wager 1.1

To make comparison to Pascal's Wager easy, it is assumed that all afterlifes are of equal value α, that only one god can exist, and that only belief in in one god is possible. Further, only three gods which parallel the Christian god of Pascal's Wager are included.

The Wager can be expressed in the following table:

Table 2
  Real god: Sum:
None God A God B God C
Chosen god: None −1α −1α −1α −3α
God A +1α −1α −1α −1α
God B −1α +1α −1α −1α
God C −1α −1α +1α −1α

If we extend the number of gods to n places:

  1. An atheist will always get −nα in the afterlife
  2. A theist of any (A, B, C) religion will always get (2 − n)α in the afterlife.

This Wager concludes that atheism is bad and that any theism is equally valuable.

Thus the Wager a poor apologetic tool, because it does not convince anyone to your theism, but merely a theism.

And even believers don't escape the torment; they're just slightly less likely to get it.

[edit] Wager 1.2

Furthermore, the assumption that it's only possible to believe in one god has no support. Why can't somebody believe in Thor and Zeus at the same time? No reason at all!

The Wager can be expressed in the following table:

Table 3
  Real god: Sum:
None God A God B God C
Chosen god: None −1α −1α −1α −3α
God A +1α −1α −1α −1α
God B −1α +1α −1α −1α
God C −1α −1α +1α −1α
All gods +1α +1α +1α +3α

If we extend the number of gods to n places:

  1. An atheist will always get −nα in the afterlife
  2. A theist of any (A, B, C) religion will always get (2 − n)α in the afterlife.
  3. An omnitheist will always get nα in the afterlife.

The Wager concludes that atheism is worst, and that theism is better, and also that omnitheism is best. This makes the Wager a terrible apologetic tool, because it would not convince anyone to your theism, but every theism.

[edit] Wager 1.3

Of the set of gods that can possibly exist, there necessarily is a god that fits any system of rewarding and punishing people in the afterlife. This is because, in an infinite set that only has one condition (existence), every other condition must occur as well as every combination of every condition. Thus, we know that there is a god that can possibly exist that follows any given system of reward and punishment.

Thus, for every god n, there necessarily must exist a god -n, which does exactly the opposite of what god n does.

The Wager can be expressed in the following table:

Table 4
  Real god: Sum:
None God A God -A God B God -B God C God -C
Chosen god: None −1α +1α −1α +1α −1α +1α
God A +1α −1α −1α +1α −1α +1α
God -A −1α +1α −1α +1α −1α +1α
God B −1α +1α +1α −1α −1α +1α
God -B −1α +1α −1α +1α −1α +1α
God C −1α +1α −1α +1α +1α −1α
God -C −1α +1α −1α +1α −1α +1α
All gods +1α −1α +1α −1α +1α −1α

If we extend the number of gods to n places:

  1. An atheist will always get 0 in the afterlife
  2. A theist will always get 0 in the afterlife.
  3. An omnitheist will always get 0 in the afterlife.

The Wager concludes that all choices are equivocal.

[edit] Objections

[edit] Strong atheism

If no gods exist, then Pascal's wager is of course irrelevant.

However, the only way strong atheism is true is if all gods cannot exist. The only way to prove nonexistence is to show that some attribute of a god is contradictory with reality. From this infinite set of gods, only one attribute is common amongst them: Nonphysicality. Unless a strong atheist can prove that all nonphysical objects cannot exist, then some subset of these gods will possess noncontradictory attributes and could possibly exist, making them relevant.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support